It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WTC 9/11 Site - Molten Metal & Copper Oxide Thermite

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by MMC
Because the WTC could take multiple strikes from a 707 and remain standing.


It was also being said that Titanic is unsinkable. It was being said that STS boosters have no problems. Right here it was being said the subway is flood-proof...
And by the way WTC TOOK the strike and reamined standing. Just the following fire enhanced the damage beyond the point where it can be sustained..




posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

And yet you believe that damage from a plane and uneven fires would do the same thing, bringing the buildings down in such a nice neat way. Funny how the contradiction never enters you guy's mind. If all this intensive work needs to be done to take down these towers, then how in the heck did a plane and fire do it? You can't have it both ways. Either the towers were shotty, didn't have fireproofing and pretty much could be felled by an airplane and uneven fires or the towers were built strong and had to have all these explosives placed at intrical parts.

I have to ask. How can you believe that the explosives had to be placed accurately and detonated in sequence, when you believe that a plane (mind you that the planes hit different parts of the buildings but yet fell in an identical manner) and fire can accomplish the exact same thing? And don't say that the plane could have acted as the bomb, because by your own words, an explosion would need to be next to the structural members to do any damage.

Also, I find it amusing that when defending the official story, people talk about fireproofing missing, the mafia built the towers to be inferior, etc. etc. But, when it comes to the explosives...."oh, no..these towers are mighty and have to have precision placed explosive on every structural element". BTW, you know why they have explosives placed pricisely don't you? So that the structure doesn't fall hap-hazardly like it should when a plane and fire cause a gravitational collapse.


You've got me thinking. I was initially disinclined to believe that the explosives had been placed during construction. Now I'm not so sure. Remember, the buildings were designedto withstand a loaded 707 impact. Why? Because it was a significant threat. If it was a significant threat that a plane would strike and that it might cause the building to collapse ... what would happen if the design failed and the building actually did collapse? It would not likely fall into its own imprint.

So, what if for that reason they decided to install the very explosives necessary to mercifully bring the struck building down in its own footprint, thus saving countless lives and structures in the crowded area? Was C-4 available back then? What was?



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Seattlelaw,

You might want to check out the thread tiltled "The big FEMA lie......" by Christophera. That is actually the main basis of his theory. That C-4 was included in the design and construction of the building. I'm not sure if I agree with him 100% but he does have a good arguement IMO. I'd be more inclined to believe this if we could get proof that a skyscraper (any skyscraper and not a munitions silo) has had C-4 built into the reinforcing bar.

Edit: Then we'd have to find proof that the WTC towers were built with reinforced concrete cores. Until we can view the construction documents, I don't think we'll ever really know for sure.

[edit on 6/21/2006 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by seattlelaw
So, what if for that reason they decided to install the very explosives necessary to mercifully bring the struck building down in its own footprint, thus saving countless lives and structures in the crowded area? Was C-4 available back then? What was?



While reading this thread, I had a similar thought. Now, it's just a theory off the top of my head, with absolutely nothing to back it up, but, at the same time, doesn't seem wholly far fetched (besides one point, which I'll address in a moment).

Considering that when the WTC 1 and 2 were completed, they were the tallest buildings in the world, the architects and engineers really had no prior real-world precedent to state whether or not these buildings would actually withstand the forces they were designed to. Also, the construction techniques used in the towers was a wholly new and unproven system. It doesn't seem too far fetched to think that explosives would have been implanted during the original construction of the building, in such an event as the structure failed where it wasn't supposed to. A 1300 foot tall structure, constantly plagued by winds (most skyscrapers are constantly dealing with high winds, which is why they must have redundant support systems to keep the buildings standing on a daily basis, especially in coastal/waterfront cities such as NYC) that collapsed due to an aircraft impact would most likely topple, rather than fall straight down. This is simple physics. Even though these structures were designed to withstand the impact force of a 707 (which is a rather large aircraft - significantly larger than the 767s that actually did impact the building), suppose they toppled anyway. Wouldn't it make sense to install a secondary failsafe (in the form of explosives to control the descent of the building), to prevent these enormous towers from falling across several city blocks, killing how many more people?

The only reason that this scenario seems a little more outside the realm of possibility, is because there have been regular bomb sniffing dogs throughout the buildings countless times since they were completed in 1971. Surely these dogs would have detected explosives planted when the towers were erected.

Barring the notion that these bomb-sniffing dogs did not detect pre-planted explosives, the explosives commonly used in controlled demolitions, TNT and nitroglycerine, and in rare cases (typically in smaller military style demolitions), C4 all existed when the WTC towers were built (C4 being the newcomer to the scene, and having been developed in the mid-1960s). Controlled demolition techniques have also been known since the mid 60s, with several instances of explosive style demolitions dating back as far as 1773, with the demolition of the Holy Trinity Cathedral in Waterford Ireland. Additionally, the tallest building ever legally demolished by controlled demolition was the Singer Building in NYC, in 1968, to clear space for One Liberty Plaza (ironically enough, right next door to the former WTC site).

All that said, the technology and proper explosives to wire a building for controlled demolition existed at the time of the WTC construction, so it's possible, no matter how unlikely.

General demolition information
Information on building implosions
More information on the Singer Building



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Now I've heard it all. This has finally gone off the deep end. The towers had a built in bomb. Somebody here see one too many episodes of Hogan's Heros or something? This is wrong in so many ways that it isn't even funny.

First: C-4 degrades over time as does most explosives. When C-4 degrades it becomes chemically unstable and becomes shock sensitive.

Second: If the towers WERE loaded with explosives during construction the 1993 bomb blast would have tripped some of the charges by sympathetic detonation.

Third: How would they prevent an accidental detonation in the event of a fire or electrical problem?

Fourth: How would you keep something like this a secret for over 25 years?

Last, but not least. There were people known to be still alive in the upper floors of both towers. If you had built a bomb into each tower, why detonate them before rescue efforts were finished?

I've heard of the towers being designed to take a 707 impact, not multiple impacts into the same tower. This is one of the reasons that I bought into the substandard steel theory when I heard it.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   
The pro-government arguments in this thread are just riduculous:

"It is too hard to plant the explosives..."

1. Not if you have access.
2. Not if you control the security company.
3. This argument is PATHETIC to anyone who works in a high rise.

"How do you carry 198 lbs of explosives?"

1. Ever heard of a CART? The kind ALL CONTRACTORS push around buildings? How about tool boxes?

"You have to fix the drywall..."

1. How do you know what all of the wiring, janitorial and service closets in the core looked like?
2. There are many areas, say around the back or side of an enclosed column that no one would ever bother to loook at. Maybe they just put blank outles covers or something in place to hide the hole?
3. This argument is ALSO PATHETIC to anyone who works in a high rise.

"You can't time them it is to hard"

1. The technology exists, ESPECIALLY if you control the MOST MODERN military in the world to time the charges.
2. WEAK argument... TOTALLY possible.

"How do you detonate them?"

1. How about encrypted digital signals carried over RF? Simple and VERY difficult to "accidentally" explode".

"How do you keep interference for "accidentially detonating" them?

1. How often does your cell phone "accidentally" ring for NO REASON? I will guess NEVER. Dumb argument.

"The explosives were"preplanted" by the builder..."

1. WTF?
2. This is going to become the "NEW REAL" story when they can no longer deny this... you just watch. They just didn't want to tell us for "national security reasons".

"Charges have to be PRECISE, but planes can be TOTALLY RANDOM"

1. Too dumb to even comment on.

The official story sucks.
The paid posters are losing their grips.
The "arguments" the post ar often so ridiculous they do not even address any point at all. They just try to confuse.

Deception through distraction... Gee, where would they EVER get that idea from?

[edit on 21-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 09:07 AM
link   
As I stated at the beginning of my post, and again at the end of my post, the idea is wholly unsubstantiated, with no factual basis for the idea. It's simply another theory that would have been *possible* when the WTC towers were constructed. I don't find it likely at all. It was simply an avenue I hadn't seen discussed before, and was looking for some sort of fact that could either make it more or less likely.

With an event like this where many things just don't seem to add up, much of the evidence was destroyed, and official stories don't seem to hold a lot of water, it never hurts to explore all avenues when trying to find the truth.

I do support the controlled demolition theory (to an extent - there's some pretty wildly differing opinions on how exactly it was achieved, and not all hold water). In that regard, I was simply trying to explore another avenue.

I will repeat again, just to make sure it's clear: I do not find the idea of building explosives into the WTC towers to be likely, especially knowing that all explosives deteriorate over time. Given technology at the time, however, it's possible, albeit very unlikely.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
First: C-4 degrades over time as does most explosives. When C-4 degrades it becomes chemically unstable and becomes shock sensitive.


Can you prove that C-4 covered rebar set in concrete degrades over time? Or would the concrete protect it from degrading? Serious question if you really want to find out if this was possible or not, unless you just want to wave your hand and say "these are not the droids you're looking for".


Second: If the towers WERE loaded with explosives during construction the 1993 bomb blast would have tripped some of the charges by sympathetic detonation.


Not if the C-4 was placed at higher elevations. Remember people surviving in the core at the base? Also, I'm trying to find a report out there that the '93 bombing wasn't close enough to the core to have damaged the C-4 (if this scenerio were true).


Third: How would they prevent an accidental detonation in the event of a fire or electrical problem?


You can throw C-4 into a fire and it won't explode. So, what's the problem again?


Fourth: How would you keep something like this a secret for over 25 years?


How have they kept the JFK shooting a secret for over 25 years? Who is going to talk? The engineer who designed this system? If I designed a secret system for detonation, I know I wouldn't be talking about it to people. Plus, they have ways of keeping people silent.


Last, but not least. There were people known to be still alive in the upper floors of both towers. If you had built a bomb into each tower, why detonate them before rescue efforts were finished?


Maybe because tower 2 started a gravity driven collapse (the tilting of the cap) and they decided that it was too much and to implode early. I believe that tower 1 was mostly evacuated before it fell. When I say mostly, I mean more than tower 2.


I've heard of the towers being designed to take a 707 impact, not multiple impacts into the same tower. This is one of the reasons that I bought into the substandard steel theory when I heard it.


I believe it's a misconception that they were designed to take a 707 impact. It was the structural engineer that thought to do the calculation after the design I believe. It just happened that the design could take the impact of a 707, not that the towers were specifically designed to take the impact. There is a difference.

This is all speculation on my part. I've already said that I don't 100% perscribe to this theory but it does have possibilities. Unlike some, I actually think about other's theories and not just poo-poo it because it doesn't comform to what I want it to. Not specifically meaning you Jim...I don't mean to say that about you because most of the time even if we do disagree, I get the impression that you are thinking things through.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
The pro-government arguments in this thread are just riduculous:

"It is too hard to plant the explosives..."

1. Not if you have access.
2. Not if you control the security company.
3. This argument is PATHETIC to anyone who works in a high rise.

"How do you carry 198 lbs of explosives?"

1. Ever heard of a CART? The kind ALL CONTRACTORS push around buildings? How about tool boxes?

"You have to fix the drywall..."

1. How do you know what all of the wiring, janitorial and service closets in the core looked like?
2. There are many areas, say around the back or side of an enclosed column that no one would ever bother to loook at. Maybe they just put blank outles covers or something in place to hide the hole?
3. This argument is ALSO PATHETIC to anyone who works in a high rise.

"You can't time them it is to hard"

1. The technology exists, ESPECIALLY if you control the MOST MODERN military in the world to time the charges.
2. WEAK argument... TOTALLY possible.

"How do you detonate them?"

1. How about encrypted digital signals carried over RF? Simple and VERY difficult to "accidentally" explode".

"How do you keep interference for "accidentially detonating" them?

1. How often does your cell phone "accidentally" ring for NO REASON? I will guess NEVER. Dumb argument.

"The explosives were"preplanted" by the builder..."

1. WTF?
2. This is going to become the "NEW REAL" story when they can no longer deny this... you just watch. They just didn't want to tell us for "national security reasons".

"Charges have to be PRECISE, but planes can be TOTALLY RANDOM"

1. Too dumb to even comment on.

The official story sucks.
The paid posters are losing their grips.
The "arguments" the post ar often so ridiculous they do not even address any point at all. They just try to confuse.

Deception through distraction... Gee, where would they EVER get that idea from?



Paid Posters? There is such a thing? Damn! All this time I have been doing it for free.

Encrypted digital RF signals? Hell. I can't even get AM or FM radio in my office and I'm 10 feet from a window.

My cell phone may not ring at random, but it doesn't work that well inside an office building either.

The US may have the most modern military in the world, but they still have problems with their technology. I seem to remember several soldiers being killed when the batteries died in their GPS reciever and after replacing them they called in an airstrike on their own position. This modern military is still using survival radios from the 1970's for downed aircrews.

If you have wired the WTC with explosives why crash planes into them? Plain and simple. You have all of this high tech, super secret equipment in place to destroy these two buildings in order to cause a war, why take the chance of causing a malfunction by crashing two planes into the towers? Why not use a couple of truck bombs detonated near the towers right at the time you detonate the charges? There have been posts saying that the planes were crashed into the towers to ensure media coverage, yet the only coverage was by people who happened to be covering other events. If you wanted maximum coverage why wasn't an event staged to ensure that there would be a media presence in the area?



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
If you wanted maximum coverage why wasn't an event staged to ensure that there would be a media presence in the area?



2 planes flying into buildings does not do this? We are talking about NYC. Of course there is going to be lots of news crews around the city. Not to mention the traffic helicopters flying around everywhere.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Encrypted digital RF signals? Hell. I can't even get AM or FM radio in my office and I'm 10 feet from a window.


Any cheap cell phone can use digital encryption over RF. Why not a sophisticated detonator?

Apparently your radio sucks and because of that you assume all other non-related technology will not work? Weak argument.


Originally posted by JIMC5499
My cell phone may not ring at random, but it doesn't work that well inside an office building either.


Mine does. I am not inferring cell phones were used, it was an analogy. I am sure they could have used better antennas and stronger signals. not so hard.


Originally posted by JIMC5499
The US may have the most modern military in the world, but they still have problems with their technology. I seem to remember several soldiers being killed when the batteries died in their GPS reciever and after replacing them they called in an airstrike on their own position. This modern military is still using survival radios from the 1970's for downed aircrews.


Nice, so one example of failed technology = all technology is a failure? How can we fly predators from Vegas, but not reliably send a local RF signal to a detanator?

Weak argument.


Originally posted by JIMC5499
If you have wired the WTC with explosives why crash planes into them?


This has been answered by me many times... in the neo-cons OWN WORDS... SHOCK AND AWE. The PSHYCOLOGICAL impact was an important goal. you know this though. You try to defuse every thread with this SAME ARGUMENT. It is weak and I for one wish you would stay on the topic.


Originally posted by JIMC5499 You have all of this high tech, super secret equipment in place...


Terrorists in Iraq can remotely detonate bombs with off the shelf cell phones reliably. There is no super secret technology. Just because you or I are unaware of the newest and greatest remote detonators does not make them SUPER SECRET.


Originally posted by JIMC5499 If you wanted maximum coverage why wasn't an event staged to ensure that there would be a media presence in the area?


They DID stage an event to get the media in the area prior to detonation... They crashed two airplanes into the building.

Thanks for supporting us with your last line there.


8th

posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Amazing website. Thank you.


MMC

posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   


Amazing website. Thank you.


It gets even better today...Listen to Professor Steven Jones talk about the physical proof of thermate that has been discovered.

Radio 1: Alex Jones & Professor Steven E. Jones Discuss the Scientific Test Results of WTC Samples that Show the Use of Thermate
www.gieis.uni.cc...


Also, Draft 0.0.10 of my site has just been released. I have been forced to reconsider my identification of copper based on new photographic material.

It is now either copper or steel...

Check out the relevant sections:

Part 2: 11th September 2001 & Molten Copper or Molten Steel
www.gieis.uni.cc...


Additional Notes 5: Analysis of Jet fuel as the Source of Molten Copper or Molten Steel on 11th September 2001
www.gieis.uni.cc...

Let me know what you think...

Mod Note: You Have An Urgent U2U- Click Here.

[edit on 21/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Seattlelaw,

You might want to check out the thread tiltled "The big FEMA lie......" by Christophera.
[edit on 6/21/2006 by Griff]


Thanks Griff. I was on that thread and initially found the notion of pre-planted C-4 or whatever unlikely if not preposterous but it was this thread that made me see the possible reason for such pre-planting. The more I think about it, the more perfect sense it makes. Most if not all of these buildings will be taken down someday. Why not preplant the explosives? Especially assuming the concrete (or some other material) will protect it from deteriorating over time. It's the most efficient thing to do.

I wonder if the Vegas hotels are now being pre-planted with how often they like to knock them down? Of course the public would be kept in the dark for security purposes. And I guarantee you that if proof every comes out that the towers were demolished the excuse will be that the threat to people on the ground and in neighboring buildings required it. We absolutely KNOW that building 7 was demolished. Remember, they decided to "pull it."



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I think it is TOTALLY ludicrious to believe the the pre-plant demolition charges in civilian buildings.

The risk is TOO great. No risk analyst, insurance company or investment group would agree to this IMHO.


MMC

posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
It depends if the system was wired with the detonator controls in place.

Seriously, what do you do if the building is to unstable to allow crews inside to plant explosives?

It could topple and hit other buildings.

Pre-existing emergency explosives would be a good solution...you could drop the building in a heart-beat before it could exceed its center of gravity.

That's something that needs to be looked into.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I agree. Who would have thought that remote controlling of commercial aircraft was possible, let alone in place, before 9-11? Who would have thought it would be permitted by insurance carriers, airlines, FAA, etc? Who would think we would have enough nukes to destroy the planet many times over? What possible purpose could that serve? Destroy life itself? There is nothing more insane than that and yet it is a reality.

Your incredulity is naive.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   


portland.indymedia.org...


Clarification 19.Jun.2006 17:11
Steven E. Jones hardevidence@gmail.com link (see above link)

Just a quick clarification: As I said in my talk at the Chicago conference, and in my remarks to Alex Jones, the results so far on the analysis of the previously-molten metal samples are PRELIMINARY. I emphasized that, in fact.

The samples are predominantly iron, so we can rule out the 'molten aluminum' hypothesis with a high degree of confidence. There is very little chromium, so that the 'molten structural steel' hypothesis is highly suspect. Yes, there is sulfur -- but proving the use of 'thermate' positively will certainly require further analyzes and comparisons with samples of known origin (such as thermate-products). And that analysis takes a lot of time, unfortunately. Patience is a virtue.


It will be of utmost importance, to hear exactly how Prof. Jones obtained his molten metal samples, and if the origins of them undoubtedly can be pinpointed to a Ground Zero spot.
It won't surprise me if his adversaries would try to slip some "proof" into his hands by means of a mole.
Btw, he ought to know I applaud him for his bravery, so my remark is in no way some kind of psyops. He must act all the way as if threading on thin ice.
See it as a game of three dimensional Chess, or even Go.
It is clear from the wording of the above post, he is aware of the importance of indisputable facts.



Somebody in this thread had this theory about bottom, 1/3 and 2/3 up preplanted demolition charges. And some thoughts about how they placed them there.

Well, think just about the 3 mechanical maintenance double floors, in both buildings.
The lowest 2 were on the 8th floor of each tower.
The 3 dark rings observed in pictures of both towers.
Ideal accessible by loads of "technicians" with trollies, bags, etc.

Probably also not included in control rounds by bomb sniffing dogs.
If this was a concerted effort by high treasoners, it will have been part of their plan to switch the bomb sniffing dogs with ones which were selected for not having been teached the smell of the specific explosives used. Or better, the dogteaching materials were switched, so even the teachers will to the present day declare that their dogs would have alerted them to any explosives on a certain list.

And then you have the explosions mentioned by the Janitor. And a few of his coworkers, who were burned badly by these explosions.
In the far lowest floors of both towers btw, before planes slammed into the upper floors.

(Edit: fixed link)

[edit on 21/6/06 by LaBTop]

Mod Edit: No Quote – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 21/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Not to mention the threat of a building (say WTC7) that houses top secret material. What is a fail safe way to ensure nothing gets out when there is a fire? I would say pre-planted demolitions would do the trick, wouldn't you?



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop

Probably also not included in control rounds by bomb sniffing dogs.
If this was a concerted effort by high treasoners, it will have been part of their plan to switch the bomb sniffing dogs with ones which were selected for not having been teached the smell of the specific explosives used. Or better, the dogteaching materials were switched, so even the teachers will to the present day declare that their dogs would have alerted them to any explosives on a certain list.


I've thought of this also. Would a bomb sniffing dog be able to detect thermite/mate? Thermite is only aluminum and iron oxide (rust) powdered. I'm sure there was aluminum in the building and the building was made of iron (thus producing iron oxide). Maybe they could detect the sulfur in thermate but I'm not sure right now. Does anyone know what they train the dogs to be able to sniff out?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join